Shafter v. Huntington
| Decision Date | 16 April 1884 |
| Citation | 19 N.W. 11,53 Mich. 310 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | SHAFTER v. HUNTINGTON. |
Trusts in land for the benefit of third persons cannot be established by parol understandings with the grantee. How.St � 6179. So held, where, for the purpose of settling the estate of an intestate who left two children only, his daughter quitclaimed a part of it to her brother, and the latter, with his sister's consent, quitclaimed other land to her husband on a verbal understanding that he should hold the property for the benefit of their children, whereas instead of doing so, he mortgaged it for his own.
A voluntary conveyance without consideration cannot raise a resulting trust in favor of persons for whom the grantee agrees, by parol, to hold the property.
A deed from a joint heir conveys his undivided interest only.
Appeal from Kalamazoo.
Dallas Boudeman, for defendants.
Complainants allege that they are the heirs at law of Eliza Shafter (their mother,) who died February 24, 1864; that said Eliza was the daughter of one Mathias Sumner, and the wife of Hugh M. Shafter, (complainant's father;) that Mathias Sumner died intestate in 1844, leaving as his only heirs the said Eliza and one Alonzo B. Sumner, being at the time of his death seized of the real estate in controversy; that no administration was ever had on the estate of Mathias Sumner but by agreement his estate was divided between his two children, Eliza giving a quitclaim deed to Alonzo of a certain part of said real estate, and Alonzo giving in return a quitclaim deed of another part of said real estate, (being that which is in controversy,) to said Hugh M. Shafter, at his instance, request, and direction, without any consideration from him, and against the real and expressed wish of said Eliza; that at the time said quitclaim to Hugh M. was executed, it was well understood by said Hugh M. that the said land really belonged to his said wife Eliza; that said Hugh M. and Eliza continued to live on said land until Eliza's death, in 1864, and that since that time Hugh M. has continued to remain on said land under a claim of tenancy by curtesy, not disputing that said land equitably belonged to Eliza at the time of her death; that on January 6, 1876, said Hugh M., disregarding the rights of complainants, made on said premises a mortgage to Walter Huntington, defendant, on which was claimed to be due, at time of filing the bill, $1,623.59, and that said Huntington, well knowing the premises, was at the time of filing the bill, proceeding to foreclose his mortgage by advertisement; and that if said real estate be sold under said sale it would be against the just rights of complainants, and they would suffer irreparable wrong and hardship.
The bill prayed that the quitclaim given by said Alonzo B. Sumner to Hugh M. Shafter might be destroyed, (said deed being made July 21, 1849, and recorded August 7, 1849, in the register's office, Kalamazoo county,) and that the sale of said land by Huntington on his foreclosure might be perpetually enjoined, and that a temporary injunction issue during the pendency of the suit, and also praying for general relief. A temporary injunction was issued on filing of bill, (May 11, 1881,) but was dissolved on coming in of Huntington's answer. His foreclosure proceeded and a sale was made; the time of redemption expired. He received a deed of conveyance under the foreclosure.
The defendant Huntington filed an answer and supplemental answer, the substance of which was that defendant did not admit the allegations contained in the bill as to any interest of complainants in the real estate, and denied that they had any. He did not admit the ownership of Mathias Sumner, but alleged that Hugh M. Shafter was the owner of the land when he gave the mortgage to defendant, and that defendant actually loaned him $1,000 thereon, believing that he owned the land. He denied that Hugh M. Shafter had possession of the land under any claim of tenancy by curtesy, but as absolute owner; that he had already occupied it for such length of time that any cause of action by complainants would be barred by the long delay; that he had foreclosed his mortgage and obtained a deed, and had also purchased a tax deed upon the premises, and was in possession and claiming title thereunder, and that his title was absolute. He also denied the other allegations of the bill, and added a general demurrer clause. After the bill was filed Hugh M. Shafter died, and defendant Russell G. Smith was appointed administrator, and the suit revived in his name. The record does not show any answer or other pleading, either by Hugh M. Shafter or the administrator, nor the entry of any order taking the bill pro confesso by either of them.
We do not think the proof sustains the charge of complainants' bill, that the deed from Alonzo B. Sumner to Hugh M. Shafter was obtained by him against the real and expressed wish of the mother of complainants. The testimony shows that Mathias Sumner died in 1845 intestate, leaving as heirs at law two children, Alonzo B. Sumner and Mrs. Hugh M. Shafter; that at the time of his death he was the owner in fee and seized of the real estate described in complainants' bill; that no administration was had of his estate, but by an amicable arrangement between the heirs a division was made of the land, and Mrs. Shafter deeded to her brother her interest in a portion of the real estate, and he agreed to deed to her the remaining portion, but which was finally conveyed to Hugh M. Shafter. Why this was done appears from the testimony of Alonzo B. Sumner. He says that "Mr. Shafter insisted on his quitclaiming the east part of the farm to him instead of his wife, and it was so executed. Mr. Shafter said in that conversation in regard to this division that he did not want the land for himself at all; simply wanted to preserve it, and take care of it for the benefit of his children and Mrs. Shafter's. He said that if I quitclaimed to Mrs. Shafter her undue religious zeal would perhaps induce her to appropriate that land to some charitable purpose, missionary enterprise, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial